On 12/12/2011 02:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net writes:
On lör, 2011-12-10 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be nice if we could
clean that up while
On 12/10/2011 08:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
The other
thing is we'd need to turn on flags that make the object suitable for a
dynamic library (e.g. -fpic).
Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be nice if we could
On lör, 2011-12-10 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The other
thing is we'd need to turn on flags that make the object suitable for a
dynamic library (e.g. -fpic).
Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be
On fre, 2011-12-09 at 11:13 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Is there any good reason why we shouldn't build and install a dynamic
libpgport.so?
Just note, if you do this, you need to carefully manage API, ABI,
soname, symbol list, and all that. Every time you tweak configure's
decision about
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On lör, 2011-12-10 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be nice if we could
clean that up while we're doing this. It might be all right
On 12/12/2011 02:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net writes:
On lör, 2011-12-10 at 20:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Right now, libpq laboriously rebuilds all the .o files it needs from
src/port/ so as to get them with -fpic. It would be nice if we could
clean that up while
On 12/09/2011 06:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
In the Fedora world, a static lib would go in postgresql-devel, but a
dynamic lib would go in postgresql-libs, which is also where libpq is
shipped.
I am not against shipping a dynamic libpgport, but I will just point out
that this was never
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 12/09/2011 06:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am not against shipping a dynamic libpgport, but I will just point out
that this was never intended or anticipated. Are there any symbols in
there that might conflict with other software?
Possibly.
Recently I attempted to build an external package (pg_bulkload) against
the latest Fedora packages. Unfortunately this fails, as pgxs adds
-lpgport to any link line for an executable, and the corresponding
libpgport.a isn't there. And in fact, pg_bulkload does use some of the
functionality
On 9 December 2011 16:13, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
Is there any good reason why we shouldn't build and install a dynamic
libpgport.so?
+1 in favour of building and installing a dynamic libpgport.so. I
generally agree with your analysis.
I've seen this issue crop up a good few
On 11-12-09 11:13 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Recently I attempted to build an external package (pg_bulkload)
against the latest Fedora packages. Unfortunately this fails, as pgxs
adds -lpgport to any link line for an executable, and the
corresponding libpgport.a isn't there. And in fact,
On 12/09/2011 01:01 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11-12-09 11:13 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Recently I attempted to build an external package (pg_bulkload)
against the latest Fedora packages. Unfortunately this fails, as pgxs
adds -lpgport to any link line for an executable, and the
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Is there any good reason why we shouldn't build and install a dynamic
libpgport.so?
+1
We've struggled with slony and pgport because so many users have had
problems with pgport not being included in some distributions. It has
some useful functions, I think
13 matches
Mail list logo
